after watching "symbols of an alien sky" with great interest I am intrigued by the possibilities that emerge.

However I do have some questions regarding the theory. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

In the film the alignment of Saturn, Venus, Mars and the earth was being referred to by prehistoric man as the second sun or the superior sun. However, I find it hard to believe that such an alignment could have been stable for a long period of time (hundreds or thousands of years). After all each planet has a different rotational speed around the sun. Therefore the inner planets (earth, mars) would rotate faster than the outer planets (Venus, Saturn) and prevent a stable alignment.

Would such an alignment be kept stable by the binding electromagnetic force between those planets (resulting in plasma discharges)? Is there a way to figure out the strength of such a field by taking in to account the gravitational pull that would have to be overcome?

And if so, how did we end up with the radically different orbits of the planets around the sun in today`s solar system? How did Venus end up being the second planet orbiting around the sun (comet reference?), Saturn being the sixth planet and Jupiter being the fifth planet in our solar system? Surely there would have had to be a big event changing these orbital paths making the planets become unstable.

I am not the best person to begin answering your question so I will first refer you to www.holoscience.com and do a search for gravity. Here you will find that there is much evidence, to say the least, that gravity is a electric force and can, therefore, vary. There are numerous issues such as that gravity near a fault line will vary before an earthquake (if mass only determines gravity this should not happen), or that mercury will shift its orbit when going through a CME or the moons around saturn that switch orbits, or the many shepherd moons of jupiter and so on. The reality is that even our current configuration couldn't remain unless there was something constantly keeping it in balance as well as all the observed contradiction, only of which a few have been mentioned. So when you consider that the "mass" of each planet is only derived from assuming gravity is constant and a property of mass then you realize we don't really know thier mass. In fact thier are studies which show that the apparent mass of an atom changes with its charge. Anyways, the point is that you are on the right track that it is the electric force that kept things in balance initially until something broke that balance and things had to shift in order to regain balance. Additional detail are to come with addition films and with addition searches here. I am sure some others will chime in and give you some reference and I will try to find some as well. Thanks!

In the film the alignment of Saturn, Venus, Mars and the earth was being referred to by prehistoric man as the second sun or the superior sun. However, I find it hard to believe that such an alignment could have been stable for a long period of time (hundreds or thousands of years). After all each planet has a different rotational speed around the sun. Therefore the inner planets (earth, mars) would rotate faster than the outer planets (Venus, Saturn) and prevent a stable alignment.dunderel

Perhaps you are suggesting that the planets would have had the same speed in the Saturn configuration as they do now in the Solar System configuration. And, although considering this is most interesting, I think that we need to first conssider the basic configuration of the Saturn System. We have Saturn, Venus, Mars and Earth in a line. Perhaps there are other planets in this line too. So where is the Sun - is it in this line too ? No. The Sun might be about at the distance from the Sun Saturn is now, or the Saturn System might be light years from the Sun, and maybe other possibilities. The planets are held in line by a Birkeland Current that runs through them all. Perhaps they are also held in line by being between Saturn and Jupiter, but this is just another theory.

And if so, how did we end up with the radically different orbits of the planets around the sun in today`s solar system? How did Venus end up being the second planet orbiting around the sun (comet reference?), Saturn being the sixth planet and Jupiter being the fifth planet in our solar system? Surely there would have had to be a big event changing these orbital paths making the planets become unstable.dunderel

There are two theories about the break-up of the Saturn System. A big event occurred, and the electrical potential wound down to such an extent that it could no longer hold the planets in the line and they simply drifted apart. Either way the smaller planets would have gone off in elliptical orbits around the Sun or else been captured by Saturn or Jupiter and become moons of such. The planets in elliptical orbits would have interacted and the planets could have ended up anywhere, but spaced out because of the electrical interactions between them. And it is here that the speeds of the planets become a key issue : Consider Earth getting closer to Mars - Earth would supposedly slow down being further from the Sun and so the speeds of Mars and Earth could become very similar. But one needs to consider the likely new elliptical orbit of Earth so that the speed of Earth varies and it is only when Earth is at the most distant point from the Sun and Mars is in conjunction that interaction will occur.

"The electric force operates at a near infinite speed on our cosmic scale, as it must inside the electron.It is a significant simplification of all of the tortuous theorizing that has gone into the nature of gravity and mass. Einstein’s postulates are wrong. Matter has no effect on empty space. Space is three-dimensionalsomething our senses tell us. There is a universal clock so time travel and variable aging is impossible—something that commonsense has always told us. But most important—the universe is connected and coherent." - Wal Thornhill

If the 'empty' space between matter turns out to be something we haven't been able to measure then matter would have an affect on it and visa versa. Saying parts of space is empty is akin to saying there is nothing in that part of space when nothing is simply a concept. Space is some-thing even if we think it's empty.

Space is three-dimensional something our senses tell us.

Isn't it the 3-dimensional objects within a 'dimensionless' space that account for spatial effects? If a part of space is regarded as empty then it has no dimensions.

Sir Oliver Lodge deserves to be heard once more:“..it may be that when the structure of an electron is understood, we shall see that an ‘even-powered’ stress in the surrounding aether is necessarily involved. What I do feel instinctively is that this is the direction for discovery, and what is needed is something internal and intrinsic, and that all attempts to explain gravitation as due to the action of some external agency, whether flying particles or impinging waves, are doomed to failure; for all these speculations regard the atom as a foreign substance -- a sort of ‘grit’ in the aether -- driven hither and thither by forces alien to itself. When, some day, we understand the real relation between matter and aether, I venture to predict that we shall perceive something more satisfying than that.”

This biophysical theory eventually developed into the concept of orgone (a word coined from the same root as “organism” and “orgasm”) which Reich saw as a massless, omnipresent substance, similar to luminiferous aether, but more closely associated with vital, living energy than inert matter.

In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light. The word aether stems via Latin from the Greek αιθήρ, from a root meaning to kindle, burn, or shine. It signifies the substance which was thought in ancient times to contain the manipulative forces beyond control.

See the correlation between the Solar Cycles and human behaviour throughout history here for insight into the 'manipulative' forces:

A. L. Tchijevsky, a Russian professor of Astronomy and Biological Physics, noticed during World War I that particularly severe battles followed solar flares. Since the sunspots were in a peak period during 1916-17, no doubt the war and its various battles were heavily stimulated by the energies which are boiling off the Sun. Intrigued by the connection of human behavior to solar physics, Tchijevsky constructed an “Index of Mass Human Excitability”. He compiled the histories of 72 countries from 500 BC to 1922 AD to provide a strong database to articulate his correlations. After rating the most significant events, Tchijevsky found that fully 80% of the most significant human events, mostly related to war and violence, occurred during the 5 years or so of maximum sunspot activity.

The Odic force (also called Od [õd], Odyle, Önd, Odes, Odylic, Odyllic, or Odems) is the name given in the mid-19th century to a hypothetical vital energy or life force by Baron Carl von Reichenbach. Von Reichenbach coined the name from that of the Norse god Odin in 1845.

Matthew wrote:Nice points JaJa

I should have been a bit clearer about the 'no dimension' part about space. I don't think we can have 'no dimension' in the literal sense - just none that we can sense. For example if we are in an empty part of space we might have no concept of what is up and down or left and right because there are no objects against which we can measure and be aware of dimension - but space is still present even though it appears nothing is there. The objects within this 'dimensionless' stuff define 3-d qualities - not space itself as Wal posited. IMHO.

So how do we put this together with the planets?Is there a relationship between electron Shell orbits and the orbits of planets?

Have experiments been done that measure the differences in electron orbits in relation to different atomic structures do you know?

Dundere said: I find it hard to believe that such an alignment could have been stable for a long period of time (hundreds or thousands of years). After all each planet has a different rotational speed around the sun. Therefore the inner planets (earth, mars) would rotate faster than the outer planets (Venus, Saturn) and prevent a stable alignment. ... how did we end up with the radically different orbits of the planets around the sun in today`s solar system?

* The owners of this site started with the common themes in myths worldwide to see if they could make sense physically. What the myths said via comparative mythology is that Saturn was originally our Sun. It was always visible above the north pole, though it was originally dim. Occasionally, it would flare and move briefly away from the polar position, but return. The flares brought cataclysms. Earth may have been following Saturn in its southern polar jet, like SL9 comet fragments lined up in a line before hitting Jupiter in 1994.* About 10,000 years ago Saturn and Earth entered the Solar System and the present Sun was seen for the first time, initially as a distant star. The "age of darkness" ended as we got gradually closer to the sun. Saturn's shine was previously probably brighter than the present full moon shine. At some point after that Mars became visible and then Venus was probably ejected from Saturn or Jupiter and became a new planet nearest on the face of Saturn. So these 3 rocky planets were now trailing behind Saturn. Then under 5,000 years ago when Saturn reached about the asteroid belt the system became unstable and the rocky planets were pulled away from Saturn into their present orbits after a period of near collisions and a great flood from the polar column. * There are a lot of details mentioned in the Cardona Interview thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3824.

When physicists came upon the idea that the atom is built like a solar system, the atoms of various chemical elements differing in the mass of their suns (nuclei) and the number of their planets (electrons), the notion was looked upon with much favor. But it was stressed that " an atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity"(h.n. russell)

Besides this,another difference was found: an electron in an atom, on absorbing the energy of a photon(light), jumps to another orbit, and again to another when it emits light and releases the energy of a photon. Because of this phenomenon, comparison with the solar system no longer seemed valid. "We do not read ion the morning papers that Mars leaped to the orbit of Saturn, or Saturn to Mars." wrote a critic. True, we do not read it in the papers; but in ancient records, we have found similar events described in detail, and we have tried to reconstruct the facts by comparing many ancient records. The solar system is actually built like the atom; only, in keeping with the smallness of the atom, the jumping of electrons from one orbit to another, when hit with the energy of a proton, takes place many times a second, whereas in accord with the vastness of the solar system, a similar phenomenon occurs only once in hundreds of thousands of years. from World in Collision pgs 381-2

Well, we now understand that electrical force IS involved in the solar system-So two or more planets could conceivably occupy the same orbit (shell) as the electrons do. I suspect that there is an exponential/ fractal relationship between the atom and solar systems.

Surely there would have had to be a big event changing these orbital paths making the planets become unstable.

Just wanted to say that i understand any discomfort that you may feel when trying to incorporate this new information into what you have been taught. Depending on your age, this new information must overcome years, if not decades of prejudice. Prejudices are thought habits, and it just takes some time and effort to overcome a habit.

As for the

big event

, compared to what EU theory is saying about the universe, the solar system realignment was small. Kinda like a billiard game "break" using subatomic particles as the balls.

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.""Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one.""Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

The discovery of other solar systems has revealed that our arrangement is not necessarily typical. There are apparently many very different possibilities.

Nick

From the article you posted:-

Update on 5 March: Lead researcher Jack Lissauer says: "Further study of the light curve of this target produced an alternative interpretation wherein one of the co-orbital candidates (KOI 730.03) has a period that is twice what we originally estimated. We think that this new interpretation, without co-orbital candidates, is more likely to be correct. We will continue to acquire Kepler data and ground-based observations ... so we can reach a better understanding of this interesting, multi-resonant, system."